M/S Jindal Power LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner
Held
The High Court held that the CESTAT had failed to answer the questions and objections raised by the appellant. The Court found that the CESTAT's order was passed in a very cursory manner and did not even touch upon the issues raised by the appellant, especially in relation to their submissions in Para-4 of the impugned order and the question of limitation. Consequently, the impugned order of the CESTAT dated 09.11.2017 was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the CESTAT for fresh consideration. The ratio decidendi is that an appellate tribunal must provide reasoned findings on all material issues and objections raised by the parties; failure to do so warrants a remand.
Facts
M/s Jindal Power Ltd. (the appellant) filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) against an order of assessment. The CESTAT passed a final order dated 09.11.2017. The appellant contended that the CESTAT failed to address the questions and objections raised by them, including the issue of limitation. The High Court of Chhattisgarh reviewed the CESTAT's order and the pleadings. The Court found that the CESTAT's order was passed in a cursory manner and did not deal with the appellant's submissions or the question of limitation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the CESTAT failed to answer the questions and objections raised by the appellant, and if so, whether this renders the CESTAT's order unsustainable? This issue turns on the principles of natural justice and the duty of appellate authorities to provide reasoned orders. The appellant argued that the CESTAT had failed to address their submissions, particularly those made in Para-4 of the impugned order, and had also not considered the issue of limitation. The respondent revenue did not record any specific arguments on this point.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR TAX CASE NO. 52 of 2018 • M/s Jindal Power Ltd., a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, through power of attorney holder Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, DGM- Finance & Accounts of the Company, S/o Mr. Jagannath Prasad Agrawala, aged about 41 years, R/o A-6, Savitri Nagar, Tehlirampur, Tamnar, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh -496108 Issued by its Autorized Signatory & Wholetime Director, Mr. Gautam Chandra, S/o Shri Late Sri Jiban Kumar Chandra, aged about 62 years, R/o A-09, Savitri Nagar Colony, Tehlirampur, Tamnar, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh - 496001. ---- Appellant Versus Principal, Commissioner, Central Tax and Central Excise Raipur, GST Bhawan, Tikrapara, Dhamtari Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent For Petitioner : Shri Badrinarayan, Shri Karan Sachdev & Shri Romir S Goyal, Advocates For Respondent : Shri Manish Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, CJ Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu,J Order on Board Per
Ajay Kumar Tripathi, CJ 22/11/2018
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the revenue.
We have perused the final order No.57869/2017 dated 9.11.2017 passed in Excise Appeal No.50518/2017 by
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Chhattisgarh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.